“The bill would establish the Butte County Healthy Communities funds, into which would be deposited specified state and federal money that would otherwise be payable to the county for various public service purposes,” says the legislative counsel’s digest of Assembly Bill 74.

The money would be put under the control of a “special administrator,” appointed by the state controller, and the funds would be used to increase “the level of wages and benefits for in-home supportive services workers.”

The bill says the money would come from state realignment funds, money from the Department of Justice, transportation funds, money from mental health, alcohol and drug programs and, among others, “funds payable to the county by the Department of Water Resources.”

Butte’s Chief Administrative Officer, Paul McIntosh, said taken together that would come to a total of about $52.7 million.

The bill specifically castigates the supervisors for the raise they gave themselves while allegedly “refusing” to consider raises for in-home workers.

“It is not Butte County that has refused to negotiate,” said Chico Supervisor Mary Anne Houx, during Tuesday’s board meeting.

McIntosh told the board that last summer the county, after several negotiating sessions with the United Domestic Workers, had put a financial offer on the table.

At that time, UDW was the official bargaining agent representing about 2,300 in-home workers in Butte County.

However, squabbles broke out between the UDW’s parent organization — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — and the Service Employees International Union, over who would represent the local workers.

That uncertainty wasn’t entirely put to bed until February when the California United Homecare Workers Union was officially certified as the bargaining agent.

McIntosh said when the union and the county met in early March, the union rejected all of the previous ground rules for the negotiations and tossed out the preliminary agreements that had been reached.

“Last week we discovered the CUHWU has worked to sponsor an amendment to a bill currently held by the Senate Health Committee, Assembly Bill 74,” McIntosh said.

Messages left by the Enterprise-Record for Frommer in his Sacramento office were not returned by deadline.

Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, told the E-R he is also trying to talk to Frommer.

“I am going to ask him if this is a stunt or what he is doing here,” said LaMalfa, who represents Butte County.

He called the bill the ultimate example of “micro-management of a great big state on Butte County.”

Supervisor Jane Dolan of Chico had another characterization for the bill.

“It is just simply outrageous,” she said.

LaMalfa said the bill was an effort on the part of an Assembly member who is being forced out of office due to term limits, to try to curry favor with union leaders.

“We will go up there and rough up this little county that doesn’t matter,” observed LaMalfa.

Tyronne Freeman, president of the union, told the E-R the legislation is not about union negotiations.

In a telephone interview from his San Bernardino office, he said AB74 is meant as an example of “responsible, good governance of tax dollars.”

He said he brought “the shocking awareness of the increase given to Butte County supervisors” to Frommer.

The unusual nature of the bill, according to Freeman, is a matter of “with peculiar actions you see peculiar remedies to get to the bottom of it.”

“Why should you get given your state dollars when you give yourself that kind of increase?” asked Freeman.

The supervisors voted raises to all regular county workers and elected and appointed department heads, according to McIntosh, based on median pay and benefits offered in 12 “comparable counties.”

Paradise Supervisor Kim Yamaguchi called the proposed legislation an “attack.”

“It is also a blatant attack by one union who has ulterior motives that are not indicative and representative of the community. That’s a sad state of affairs,” he said.

The board voted to direct McIntosh to produce a “strong” letter of protest about the proposal.

“It seems like we should not just send a letter, but do a little rabble-rousing,” said Dolan.

McIntosh said he has told the county’s Sacramento lobbyist he “would very much enjoy testifying on that bill.”

The next bargaining session between the county and union is set for April 10.

Freeman said he didn’t think the proposed legislation and negotiations were connected with Butte County, but at least one supervisor didn’t seem to share that view.

Supervisor Bill Connelly of Oroville said, “Frankly, I’m angered by this … If this union thinks that this is a way to win any honor or respect from me, they are sadly mistaken. I think they have taken a huge step in the wrong direction.”

LaMalfa reported he doesn’t consider the bill any real threat to Butte County.

“I don’t believe for a second that the governor will sign it,” he said. He also said, should the bill make it out of the Assembly, he thinks the Senate would be “a little above this petty legislation.”

Staff writer Roger H. Aylworth can be reached at 896-7762 or raylworth@chicoer.com.